- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The writ petitioner has come before this Court against the order dated 29th October,2005 issued by the Manager (Estate), whereby his application for grant of leave and licence of Quarter No.E/215/II was refused, vide Annexure-5. The ground for refusal was that the son of the petitioner had been found to be implicated in a criminal case being Jagannathpur P.S. Case no.181/2005 under Sections 341, 328, 504 and 326 IPC registered on 15.10.2005 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3256/2005. The respondents, thereafter, directed the petitioner to vacate the quarter and ultimately it was vacated on 26th October, 2006, as per the petitioner. The petitioner, through his supplementary affidavit filed on 19.06.2012, brought on record the copy of the order dated 7th May, 2009 passed by the learned court of Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, whereby on the basis of a compromise between the parties, the petitioner's son was acquitted, vide Annexures-10 and 11 to the supplementary affidavit.
(2.) THE respondents in their counter affidavit have justified the issuance of the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner's son, who was residing in the quarter allotted to the petitioner, had created a situation, which was disturbing the peace and tranquility of the neighbourhood and, therefore, the impugned order was issued. The petitioner, at the relevant point of time, had made his application for allotment of the quarter on leave and licence basis, as per Annexure-3, which was granted for a period of 11 months. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an interlocutory application by which certain amendments were allowed to be incorporated in the main writ application. The petitioner, through the newly added prayer, has sought a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of E-type quarter on long term lease on the basis of a circular, which is contained in Annexure-14 to the reply filed on 29th August 2012, which has been introduced on 6th April, 2006 after issuance of the impugned order and the filing of the writ petition. According the the petitioner, he had also made an application for allotment of E type quarter on long term lease basis as per the Circular No. 3/2006, vide Annexure-15 to the said reply. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the original ground for rejection of his application for allotment of quarter on leave and licence basis is wholly extraneous, as the petitioner had never contravened any term of the allotment made to him and it was only a minor dispute between the petitioner's son and his neighbour, which ended in compromise. The ground for rejection, therefore, is rendered non-est. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner fulfilled the conditions as laid down under Circular No. 3 of 2006 and he finally vacated the quarter on 26th December, 2006. The respondents, therefore may be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for allotment of said quarter on long term lease basis.
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent Corporation Mr. R. Mukhopadhyay, on the other hand, submits that the impugned order was wholly justified in view of the criminal case instituted against the petitioner's son with his neighbour for indulging in the offences punishable under IPC. The petitions was not a valid allottee as per the Circular No. 3 of 2006 for being eligible for consideration. The petitioner has also not made application as per the required format for being considered for allotment of the quarter on long term lease basis. It is also submitted that the petitioner is an ex-employee and has retired much time before. I have heard counsel for the parties at length. It is apparent from the facts, which are brought on record and upon hearing the parties that the petitioner's application for allotment of quarter on leave and licence basis under the prevalent Circular was rejected by the impugned order dated 29th October, 2005 on the ground of criminal case against the petitioner's son by his neighbour on certain acts of altercation and criminal intimidation. The said criminal case ended in a compromise between the parties leading to the acquittal of the petitioner's son by judgment and order dated 07.05.2009. The petitioner had remained in possession of the quarter, as per petitioner's contention when he made an application, vide Annexure 15, on 30th July, 2006 on issuance of the circular inviting applications from eligible persons for allotment of quarters on long term lease basis, vide Annexure-14, published on 6th April 2006. The writ petition has been filed immediately after the issuance of the impugned order on 30th November 2005 and thereafter a circular for long term lease basis was issued by the respondents in April 2006. The petitioner was , therefore, allowed to incorporate the prayer through a subsequent interlocutory application filed during the pendency of the writ application, as the petitioner had shown that he had made an application for allotment under the circular issued during the pendency of the writ application itself.;